agda_job_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is non-blocking ('without waiting') and reports state, but it doesn't describe possible state values, error behavior for invalid/completed jobs, or return format. This leaves significant unknowns for the agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a key differentiator. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description doesn't need to be extensive. However, it doesn't explain what the 'state' includes or how the result is returned, leaving the agent uncertain about interpreting the tool's output. It's adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter 'job' is fully described in the schema as 'Job id returned by a pending tool result', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra parameter detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already explains the parameter's source and meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'report' and the resource 'state of a pending Agda job', and the phrase 'without waiting' distinguishes it from sibling tools like agda_job_await. This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool (to check status instead of blocking) and contrasts with waiting via the phrase 'without waiting for it'. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling context (await/cancel/list) makes the intended usage clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.